Slashdot Mirror
Rand Paul Files Suit Against Obama Over NSA's Collection of Metadata
RoccamOccam writes Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is filing a class action lawsuit against President Obama and other members of his administration over the National Security Agency's collection of phone metadata, a practice he believes violates the Fourth Amendment. In a YouTube video released Tuesday, Paul compared the government surveillance to the warrantless searches practiced by the British military prior to American independence."
So few role models left in the world. This man is truly my hero for standing up to the machine.
but man is that guy a douche... I think I'll have to be against him on this just due to general principals and because I doubt the sincerity of his motivations based on past nonsense.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Rand Paul has open disdain for other amendments of the constitution. He is using the fourth amendment to bring more attention to his presidential aspirations but when his corporate masters tell him later that the fourth amendment gets in the way of profit he will be in a hurry to backpedal.
but it is still ironic that the people that gave him the power, and started the surveillance state are not suing Obama for continuing it.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Rand may be right but his reasons for doing this are not us.
Unfortunately, when you own the law and pervert it until it becomes a tool of repression, people like Rand Paul and their sensibilities don't matter.
I don't know, I think YouTube makes sense. After all, we just learned that it's the number one website in the world. A smart followup would be to edit Wikipedia entries (#2), and every politician has a staff to do that.
The courts will just dismiss this case for "lack of standing" as they did his father's lawsuit against Obama for violating the War Powers Act regarding Libya.
The Constitution provides a remedy for the Executive Branch violating laws, and it's not having the Legislative Branch go to the Judicial Branch. Congress should pass a veto-proof law clarifying its intention that universal wiretapping is against the law, and then if the Executive Branch persists, then start impeachment proceedings, where members of Congress act as judge and jury. Rand Paul's lawsuit is nothing but grandstanding -- similar to the conservative all-talk-no-results Republicans have been feeding their constituents for the past half-century, but this time it's libertarian all-talk-no-results. And unconstitutional to boot.
(Congress could conceivably start impeachment proceedings now without first passing clarifying legislation, but impeachment is a card that realistically can be played only once every couple of decades, so you want to make sure. If you don't have the votes for legislation, you sure aren't going to have them for impeachment. (You can also substitute "ethics and political will" for "votes".))
The first thing Obama did was get Congress to sign off on all the domestic spying so that he wouldn't take the fall. They kept doing it all, but now the feds have legal cover. Mind you, I think it's all shamelessly unConstitutional but you probably have to attach the laws.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Didn't this start under Bush 2? I mean, it's great that Rand is going after the current crop of criminals, but why not include the prior crop as well?
Come on, this is 2014. Youtube is a legitimate way to make announcements. The two official State of the Union videos have about a million Youtube views put together. More people watched Bill Nye's evolution/creationism debate on Youtube than live on television. Sure, there's lots of crap on Youtube, but there is plenty of crap on cable TV as well. Is NBC a bad source of news just because Jerry Springer is distributed by NBCUniversal? Is CBS a bad source of news because it broadcasts Survivor? Same thing applies to the internet. One one end, you have nytimes.com and politico.com and on the other end you have timecube.com. The fact that Timecube exists doesn't automatically discount everything else on the internet.
right, and posting your stupid opinions on slashdot is way savvy
...the presidential election campaign season has begun!
Slashdot Nomad (closer to hermit actually): Lawsuit good.
Kirk: But Rand Paul is a libertard leader.
Nomad: Error...error...libertard bad but does good...logic error...
Kirk: You failed to detect your error -- you have made two errors. You failed to correct your error -- you have made three errors.
Nomad: Error...error...must sterilize...must sterilize.
Kirk: No you don't. You won't ever mate anyway.
Nomad: Oh god...now really must sterilize! (blam)
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The world's right wing needs more people like him.
Is CBS a bad source of news because it broadcasts Survivor?
Yes. Yes it is :)
Congress is how to address this issue. This is a PR stunt that will get nowhere. Plus it will confuse the issue even more.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Someone needs to sue on behalf of the millions of low wage full time workers of large employeers that won't be getting their ACA compliant health plans because Obama again deferred the Employer Mandate, this time out to 2016. These people should have had their plans a year ago, but Obama keeps kicking their benefits forward beyond the next election.
And how much outrage on behalf of the working poor has appeared in our media? Nothing. It's been eased a bit, no worries. A mere speed bump.
How long will these people have to live to actually witness the change from a law that will be half a decade old next year?
The fact that Timecube exists doesn't automatically discount everything else on the internet.
You obviously haven't actually spent much time reading Timecube. After Timecube, everything else on the internet can easily be discounted.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Obama has allowed much of Bush-Cheney's Intelligence policy/personnel to remain in place, but it was implemented by Bush & Cheney.
When a United States Senator feels that he cannot restrain the Executive Branch except by enlisting the aid of a judge, we have lost the Republic.
Mr. Paul, you are a UNITED STATES SENATOR. You have all the power you need to put a stop to anything government does that you don't like. Write legislation. Get it passed. If the president vetoes, OVERRIDE IT. Congress was given more power than any other branch for a reason. Use it.
While you're at it, how about legislation that educates Congress on their role and power in the federal government? Given nonsense like this, it seems such legislation would be pertinent.
Also while you're at it, repeal the 17th amendment. The Senate is supposed to be a check against both the Executive Branch AND the House. Restore the Constitution to its original purpose.
CBS is an integral part of the new US Department of Propaganda. You will never hear/see ANYthing on any of the official government "mouthpieces" that the government does not want you to hear/see. Places like Youtube are, for the moment, the one of the few places to still get "non-government-approved" news/information.. In the case of Rand Paul, he is one of the VERY few members of Congress who seem to actually have the people's best interests at heart. I'm thankful we have him on our side.. Obama-bots, feel free to mod me down... You *know* you want to...
I'm not a Republican, nor a Democrat, I'M AN AMERICAN!! AND I'M PISSED!!!!
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
Well said, sir!
Agreed.
While I certainly don't agree with all of Rand Paul's ideas, I applaud him for actually HAVING ideas in the first place. Far too many Congress-critters only care about keeping the status quo (and using the status quo to keep their 'hookers and blow' funds fully stocked.)
This signature is false.
while I admire the initiative the first Federal judge who hears the case will toss it because Holder and his bunch of cronies will say 'National Security' and that a mere Federal Judge won't be able to hear the case.
Case Closed.
What Paul should do is motivate his colleagues in Congress and git rid of the FISA court and get us back on track by dismantling this bullshit that they've created and turned a blind eye to. That's the only way this system will stop intruding into our lives. While they're at it pass a Privacy bill of rights that also keeps Google and other large data exaggerators out of our lives too.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Come on, listing openly liberal sites like nytimes.com in the "rational" end of the spectrum does nothing for objective discourse. The opposite of nytimes.com isn't timecube.com, it's stormfront.com.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
[quote]... Paul compared the government surveillance to the warrantless searches practiced by the British military prior to American independence.[/quote]
While I agree with the grievances against the surveillance programs, I was struck by Paul's reach so far to the past for a historical parallel to unjust investigations. I see how this is probably more politically effective in reaching the goal of successful reforms by referencing a historically distant era and now-foreign villain, but a more recent and more analogous example of Americans being unfairly targeted by their own government would be conservatives spying on liberal groups in the twentieth century - from suspected communists to civil rights leaders like MLK to anti-war groups.
The fact is, that the metadata belongs to the phone companies, not to the user.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
". In the case of Rand Paul, he is one of the VERY few members of Congress who seem to actually have the people's best interests at heart. I'm thankful we have him on our side"
His father........sure. Rand Paul blocked pipeline safety.
This day in simple answers to bad questions.
Senior members of Obama's own party have said they find out about these programs from the press, via whisteblowers like Snowden, before being briefed by the White House. How are you supposed to stop something you know about, and even if you did know, how does that make you more responsible than the trigger-man?
I don't think that NYT is as liberal as Stormfront is conservative, but feel free to substitute wsj.com for nytimes.com if you like that better. The point still stands IMO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjRHyUPI7MQ
Re: "People keep claiming that the NSA's actions are illegal and unconstitutional, but they aren't."
You are wrong.
The court decisions you reference only looked at, IIRC, the Patriot Act. They decided that the NSA activity was in conformance with that. What has not been determined is that the NSA activity is constitutional. And this is what the NSA wants. Keep limiting the conversation, arguing very limited sets of facts.
My theory is that the NSA knows or suspects that their activity is unconstitutional. They want to keep it going as long as possible so they employ blocking behaviours. Keep the scope of debate small and try to achieve small, technical wins.
Eventually they will have to face a full-on constitutional challenge at the Supreme Court and they will almost certainly lose that. Once that happens they either give up the unconstitutional spying activity, try to change the constitution, or carry on the illegal activity by using proxies or other devious means.
There is already a lower court decision that says the massive spying breaches the constitution.
You cannot argue that the Founding Fathers wanted the nation to look the way it does now. So they start spewing nonsense like, "it's a new age, and the challenges of technology and the threat of terrorism calls for new approaches."
Really? We are more threatened now than when fascism threatened the globe? Or we are more threatened than when communism controlled huge swaths of humanity? When the fledgling US had to fight the power of the British Empire, you don't think that constituted a much greater threat? Even the Great Depression was a far more serious challenge.
Here's an alternate interpretation. Multiple three-letter-acronym spy agencies, which faced restrictions based upon their bad behaviour in the 50's and 60's, saw an opportunity. And let's face it they do have a mandate. However they decided to take FULL advantage of getting executive backing, new funding, and the benefit of various Hollywood movies that portray spies as good guys rather than bad guys (this tends to swing back and forth over the decades).
Long story short, the NSA, FBI, CIA et al. have overreached. Time to rein them in.
If Obama were to introduce a bill that did nothing more than repeal the Patriot Act, you better believe Rand would find some excuse to vote against it.
What's Rand Paul doing that he's so concerned about?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Not sure who to despise more in American politics these days. Keep it coming Washington, I want to see opinion ratings below 5%.
anything the ex(yay!)atty general of virginia (of transvaginal ultrasound fame) is automatically suspect...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
i forget: the 1st pres. on 24 was black, the 2nd a woman, but were they the same or opposite parties? are we doomed to follow a fox storyline?
Rand Paul engages in masturbatory litigation for purpose of public consumption. Impeach or get off the pot.
In the case of Rand Paul, he is one of the VERY few members of Congress who seem to actually have the people's best interests at heart.
Really? In what way is the elimination of representation of the people in the senate, or decrease of upper income taxation at the expense of the lower income brackets, an example of having "the people's best interests at heart"?
The two official State of the Union videos have about a million Youtube views put together
Those were also broadcast live, and have official transcripts available. Neither of those can be said for this latest oral brain fart from the son of the cult leader.
Number one, the individuals who earn their money own their money; it's not "society's" money. So, reducing the taxes on any bracket is in no way at the expense of any other bracket. No bracket—no individual, actually—has a claim on any other. You know what would be a good idea? Stop spending so much money in the first place.
Number two, direct representation in the Senate undermines our federal system. You want to argue whether or not the Senate should be elected by the people or by the states, that's fine. But to just rule it out is to whitewash the centralization of governmental power that's been happening for something like the last 100 years. Some of us are not at all happy about that.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
Rand Paul is an idiot just like his idiot father.
But even a broken clock is right twice a day, and he is right on this issue.
Oh that would be himself.
Citation needed!!
I would much rather the government collect metadata for the sake of tracking down criminals/terrorists than actual direct data. At least metadata is somewhat anonymous.
If you honestly think the government can stop collecting *any* data on people and still catch terrorists before they go boom then you are in for a rude awakening. It *will* happen. We just need to make sure that the data remains as anonymous as possible until the last moment, at which point they acquire a warrant to dig out specific names.
like Rand Paul can do the right thing once in a while. However, if a Republican was in office, I doubt he would do this, because, basically, this is just political theatre. Political theatre is the offspring of when tragedy fucked kabuki bareback.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
You mean get it passed with a 67% margin in both chambers to override a presidential veto. The chances of that happening with this Congress (and Hoover-type blackmail) are slim to none, and Slim's on his way out of town.
Compared to trying to have the courts strike it down. Which is the point of having three co-equal branches: that one will try and uphold the rule of law if the other two fail.
While you're at it, read up on this thing we call the 19th Century and the massive corruption involved with state governments picking Senators instead of voters.
Have you stopped beating your wife? Citations for that shit, sir.
From report in the Washington Post, the "lawyer" newly installed in the "Legal Complaint" did not draft or write it! This "lawyer" is a failed Attorney General of a recent "state election." The real lawyer who wrote the draft was "replaced" by the phony lawyer by actions of Rand Paul.
Rand Paul and his new "lawyer" have turned what could have been an excellent exploration of Constitutional Law into a plagiarism mockery of the English Language.
The "Suite" i.e. Legal Complaint was already dead on arrival anyway.
The Federal District Courts have already ruled that the activities of the NSA, i.e. those in this regard, are:
1) Lawful
2) Protected by Federal Law
3) Anyone with the means, methods and techniques can do the very same, as did students and Faculty of Stanford University.
About that 1776 comment of Rand.
Well, all the "usual suspects" of "1776", i.e. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Henry, et al. were under British Law, CRIMINALS.
And the British Troopers there at the time were sent to kill them were in no different way as the US Trooperts in Iraq and Afghanistan and Somalia and Yemen are there to kill who ever opposes PAX Obama Americana.
Fuck YOU!
You side the treasonous Federal Reserve then?
Hear, hear. I donated to this cause a couple weeks ago, glad to see it progressing.
So what times of the day are you right, then?
Ooops, you better go find a clock repairman.
On the topic of who he was named after - I wonder if Stalin had a hand in Ann Rand's propaganda against democracy or if he got it for free.
Amazing how many people take their guidance about what is wrong with democracy from someone who had so little experience of it.
Randall Paul was not named after Ayn Rand (wikipedia). Ayn Rand lived in the United States from age 21 (1926) onwards. Rand's criticisms of democracy pretty much follow the tradition of America's founders, and her criticisms of American government were based on opposition to collectivist policies.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Keep on telling yourself that if you wish to retain your delusion. However I suggest you read Franklin and others if you want to get an idea of what America's founders really thought. You'll find a lot of differences, a lot less advocacy of selfishness and no desire at all to be run by an enlightened nobility.
But where was he when the Patriot Act was created and where's his fight against no-fly lists
Ayn Rand advocated rational self interest, and a society which would celebrate and foster it. Is rational self interest the same as selfishness? Well I think that's a semantic issue. In any case Ayn Rand did not advocate the kind of selfishness that most people imagine. If you take Atlas Shrugged for instance, there were lots of people in her books that a typical person might call selfish that were actually villains, and many of the actions of the protagonists one might deem generous if they weren't constantly proclaiming the selfish reasons for their actions.
Another example is in John Galt's crazy long speech, he says something like how even giving to charity can be in one's rational self interest, if one derives pleasure or a sense of purpose from helping people, as opposed to being forced to give to charity (e.g. via coercion form the state). Some people might object to this idea by saying it's not true altruism if the altruistic person is somehow benefiting, but if this is the case, then I don't think true altruism actually exists.
There are definitely some areas of Ayn Rand's philosophy that probably deserve some criticism, including her ideas of rational self interest, but I think many people tend to oversimplify her position when they reduce it to "She advocates selfishness".
Not quite, just plain selfishness instead of such a grand title since it's not really all that rational. The existence of civilisation required overcoming such a thing instead of staying in self interested small family groups.
In other words not really a philosophy but instead just something to laugh at by a person that never had a chance to put their ideas about running a society into practice on any level.
They had plenty of very good ideas, to the point where other companies production vehicles ended up looking like US concept cars. Meanwhile management kept pushing wartime technology (or pre-war with things like the engine out of the '37 Chevy being used a lot until 1980) and starved the good ideas. There were Fords in the 1970s less technologically advanced than the 1930s Volkswagen Beetle - crap brakes, leaf springs and all.
By seeing themselves as "too big to fail" and spending too much energy on internal politics Detroit gave a large chunk of the US market away to imports.
Rand Paul, an anti-abortion, anti-progressive tax, anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-environment moron who won't even answer a question about how old the earth is and ascribes to the philosophy that we should specifically ignore the best interests of other people in the interests of ourselves is the man you choose as your exemplar of someone who has the interests of the people at heart?
Well, I'm not a Republican nor a Democrat. I'm a Canadian! And I'm amused!
The existence of civilization required overcoming such a thing instead of staying in self interested small family groups.
You think civilization overcame selfishness?! Do you not consider feudal Europe selfish or not a civilization? What about the industrial revolution?
>I'm not a Republican, nor a Democrat, I'M AN AMERICAN!! AND I'M PISSED!!!!
Then you'd probably be interested in this fellow american (because he's a good guy).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
I know that you did but I disagree and think those examples are a bit of a stretch on the part of advocates to try to justify the underlying message. It comes down to an opinion. I can see why you hold such an opinion but I don't agree with it myself. What I have read of her work was juvenile selfishness, ranting against democracy, and a whole lot of magical stuff happening to characters for no reason as the universe gifted them with things, presumably because they were special. The latter is fine so long as people don't try to pretend it's anything more than fiction, but that's the problem isn't it?
Civilisation at even the levels you discuss could not exist without co-operation. A number of Randian hermits could not run parts of feudal Europe even though I'm sure they would feel entitled enough to think they deserve to do so.
do you want the wishy washy feel good answer? or the truth??
People are stupid. thats all there is too it, Look at the last 5 elections or so for proof of that. the senate was intended to be voted on by the smart people in the house, not by the dumb people all over the country who can tell you who won american idol but cant tell you who the secretary of the state is. When we elect people based on promises of what they will give me, we are all doomed. With all that in mind, yes taking the senate back from the people actually would be in our best interest. One of the few times that I actually am for taking rights from americans
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Bravo!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Ive experienced enough Democrazy to say;
Get the F**K rid of it, nasty, slimey, bait and switch, stinking of enablement of political ambition and corruption, spreading like syphillis throughout the world, only WE can end Democrazy in our time.
Dumbass!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
lets go over your "facts"
anti abortion - on a personal level, not on a policy level, which is the right way to be. He doesnt want to ban abortions, he doesnt want me and you to have to pay for them but he doesnt want them outlawed
Anti progressive tax.... and? hes anti tax period of course he is anti progressive tax. We want equality across the board, And that means everyone should pay into the system equally. We currently have a system where the top 10% pay some 80% of the taxes, regardless of what you hear in the media the rich are paying for us all.
Anti feminist... Feminists are just man haters, we should be against hate groups of all kinds be it the black panthers or the KKK or yes feminists. at least radical feminists
Anti environment? Citations please. Because as far as I can tell he is not
Not answering how old the earth is? well duh its clearly a stupid question that should never be asked in the first place in this day and age. The only reason it is asked is to get talking points.
ignoring the best interests of the people? Again citations needed. The fact of the matter is he is one of a small handful of people who actually believes in the constitution, and he is one of the few people fighting the government for the people, as this lawsuit shows
Canadian, well that explains why you dont understand, as you are spoonfed misinformation by the media
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Specifically, it doesn't matter if there are damages. Spying on Americans without warrants is punishable by a $10,000 fine and a five year prison term. For each individual offense.
Unless you can clearly show damages the courts have shown great reluctance to grant standing in a lawsuit. Basically if you cannot prove that our national security apparatus damaged you directly then the suit gets tossed before even being heard. Worse the government simply claims everything they'd have to detail in court cannot be revealed because it would damage national security and thus you cannot get or use evidence to prove you have been damaged. Doesn't matter if it really should be classified or not because the judges aren't authorized to see classified material either and the government won't show it to them.
Furthermore lets say that you somehow get this trial (you won't) and you somehow prove your case (you can't), then who gets punished? It is a government agency doing the spying. Who gets fined and imprisoned? Best case is some low level flunkie they throw under the bus. You certainly aren't going to get anyone with any actual power thrown in jail.
IIUC, the provision in the constitution for the legislature to reign in the executive is to refuse to pass any appropriation bills.
Not necessary. Congress could reign in the NSA by simply passing a bill that de-funds the NSA. Congress does not have to work with tools as blunt as shutting the entire government down. The fact that they choose not to do so speaks volumes.
while I admire the initiative the first Federal judge who hears the case will toss it because Holder and his bunch of cronies will say 'National Security' and that a mere Federal Judge won't be able to hear the case.
You are right about what would happen. What we need is a judge who would then toss the lawyers who say that in jail for contempt of court. The judiciary is useless if it is a lapdog for the executive branch.
You've got the right concept (separation of POWERS), but the wrong adversaries (church and state). The church has no civil power at all. The separation of it from the state is to protect the church from being corrupted by the state.
The adversaries the founders had in mind were the co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative, and the court. Each of these branches does have significant power.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
In the case of Rand Paul, he is one of the VERY few members of Congress who seem to actually have the people's best interests at heart
Only if you have a few peculiar view of what the people's best interests actually are. Personally I think he is a dangerously delusional clue-bag who supports a bunch of nonsensical ideas that relatively few people share or desire.
I'm thankful we have him on our side..
Only in the sense of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I have largely agreed with him on this issue (for instance he opposed the PATRIOT act) but I've heard little else from him that I think is anything resembling sane governance. Even on issues of National Security he talks out both sides of his mouth. Look at his position on Edward Snowden. He acknowledges that Snowden revealed government lawbreaking but then says he should go to jail for it - "a fair trial with a reasonable sentance". (just not for life -ooh, what a tough stand) Either Snowden is a whistle-blower, deserving of protection or he is a criminal. There is no middle ground here but he's pandering just like the rest them. His positions appear to be mostly ideological grandstanding rather than practical attempts at reform.
Yes, we left those philosophies - the ones that built this nation - behind. Now we're on the verge of social and economic collapse. We've created a society that Stalin and Hitler would drool over. But then, humans suck as a species so, nice work!
Personally if I were a federal judge (never going to happen but I can dream) if the only evidence that the federal government provided was a statement of "National Security" it would seem that they failed to provide any evidence in their defense and I would have to rule for the plaintiff.
As far as getting Paul and his colleagues in Congress to do something you should prod your elected officials and get others to do so as well. Write them, call their office, send them e-mails, while they will probably just ignore you, both senators Franken and Kolbuchar, as well as Representative Kline seem to never respond to me now, registering your opinion with other like minded individuals makes a statement. Then to really watch them squirm show up at one of their campaign events or local constituent meetings and ask them why they didn't support ending the unconstitutional invasion of privacy or what ever issue you are upset about. Be sure to ask it in a way that paints their non support in the worst possible way but be polite and courteous so you don't come off as a raving nut bag. Also do the same when they have their campaign people out knocking on doors during the election season since they often do pass information up the chain, probably because their campaign finds out there is a well informed individual in the neighborhood who probably talks with the other neighbors. There is also the local OpEd section in the paper but that tends to get filtered but again they print a lot of things so long as they don't sound like the ravings of a nut bag. Make better use of the soap and ballot box and elected officials will start to change.
Time to offend someone
USPS's problem is that it is a part of the government. Our government "borrowed" money from every part that had any to keep few people who made election donations happy. They already looted Social Security, USPS and I wonder what they will loot next.
The sad truth is that this "democratic" administration is going to destroy all social programs for the sake of stupid Obamacare. Then the next administration, no doubt republican, is going to shutdown this mess known as Obamacare and there will be no social programs left in this country.
Well lots of cases have been thrown out under "National Security" blankets but it still doesn't make it right. Let Franken know he wasn't funny on SNL and he's not funny as a Senator, a lot of fluff and hot air but not a lot of action. I guess though that's the norm for Congress these days.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
When a Republican does something that looks sane, it turns out to be either a crazy thing with sufficient spin on it (see the Climate Science bill) or plagiarized.
'We've created a society that Stalin and Hitler would drool over.'
Given the USA's relationship to Isreal I wouldn't say Hitler would drool over it.
'Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.', Winston Churchill
Why not add the TSA while he's at it? It's another group operating diametrical to the fourth amendment.
Finally, someone who hates Obama enough to overcome the right-wing tendency towards more government surveillance. It's easy enough for a Democratic congress to go after a Republican president who abuses the rights of the American people, but apparently you have to call in the radicals to get a Republican congress to go after a Democratic president. I would have thought it wouldn't be that hard, though, with all the radicals around.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Ah yes, it's imperative that Rand Paul keep his Tea Bagger base happy as they are quick to be a turncoat.
ROTFL
Spoken like true Academia Retard!
I know that you did but I disagree and think those examples are a bit of a stretch on the part of advocates to try to justify the underlying message.
I am not an Ayn Rand advocate. I think the best criticism of her that I have ever heard is the following "Her original parts of her philosophy suck, and the good parts of her philosophy are unoriginal". I think the "selfishness" part of her philosophy falls under the category of unoriginal but correct.
To me it is not even a question of "should we be selfish?". Everyone already is selfish on some level. People who donate time and money to charity because it makes them feel good are selfish. People who are loyal friends are selfish because they expect loyalty in return. There is no such thing as true altruism, because if there were really no benefit (or perceived benefit) to an action, then there is no reason to do it.
What Ayn Rand is saying is that we shouldn't pretend that this is not who we are. We shouldn't pretend that we are ever 100% selfless. It doesn't even make sense to be. Rather than feeling guilty about it and shaming others for it, we need a more mature and realistic model of altruism/selfishness.
There needs to be a way to distinguish somebody who does something positive like donating to charity because it makes them feel good, with somebody who exploits poor people in order to get money to buy luxury items that makes them feel good.
Most people will call the person who exploits poor people selfish and the person who donates to charity altruistic. Ayn Rand chooses to call the person who donates to charity selfish (i.e. a rational self interested person) and the person who exploits the poor a looter (i.e. a person who's self interest is irrational). In this respect I think she was being deliberately sensationalistic. As I said, it is easy to look at this and say, "Ayn Rand advocates selfishness", but this is only if you ignore the fact that Ayn Rands version of selfishness (while not exactly generosity by most people's standards), is certainly not what they would consider selfishness.
What I have read of her work was juvenile selfishness, ranting against democracy, and a whole lot of magical stuff happening to characters for no reason as the universe gifted them with things, presumably because they were special. The latter is fine so long as people don't try to pretend it's anything more than fiction, but that's the problem isn't it?
There are probably a hundred examples in her books of people behaving in an essentially generous or at least civically responsible manner, but give a "rationally self interested" reason for why they did it. They are often risking their lives to keep promises they made, or to protect the rights of others out of a sense of duty, and then they say things like "I did it because I benefit if we live in a society where promises are kept and rights are protected". It seems a bit silly, but it's not "plain selfishness".
Civilisation at even the levels you discuss could not exist without co-operation. A number of Randian hermits could not run parts of feudal Europe even though I'm sure they would feel entitled enough to think they deserve to do so.
I don't know where you are getting hermits from. The characters in Atlas Shrugged were living in metropolis that they essentially built. even when they went off to form their own society, it wasn't to be alone, it was so the could build another thriving metropolis that wasn't ruined by the villains in the book. A huge portion of the book talked about the importance of mutually beneficial business deals, and in moving society forward through excellence. She just as much as anyone believed in the benefit of working together to achieve more than what people could achieve by themselves. The only difference is she believed that the reason people should work together is for their own interest, which is why she opposed being forced to work together as in communism.
The big problem is, what do we replace it with?
No, my friend, we haven't create such a society, but we are on the way, we just have to we keep defending collectivist doctrines and increasing the government size and we will get there for sure.
Or any other form of government. She isn't just down on communism which is why her work is laughed at. It's pushing very small tribal groups instead of any sort of organised form of society - so my "hermits" bit is not really that accurate because the "hermits" have families and a small circle of friends.
One thing that really gets me is the shrugged bit itself. Instead of the choice of doing a job or not there is the pretence of a third choice, shrugging, doing the job in such a useless way that everyone wished you didn't do it at all. It's shallow sociopathic bullshit and if Stalin had paid someone to come to the US and write stuff to divide the place I doubt he couldn't have got better results. Instead Rand did it for free - living off US welfare while railing against it and the system that kept her alive.
Or any other form of government. She isn't just down on communism which is why her work is laughed at. It's pushing very small tribal groups instead of any sort of organised form of society - so my "hermits" bit is not really that accurate because the "hermits" have families and a small circle of friends.
I wouldn't say she was against any form of government. I'm pretty sure she viewed a central government as the only legitimate means of protecting rights and enforcing the rule of law. She was opposed to anarchism. She even supported government enforcement of patents and copyrights as a means to drive innovation. So the claim that she is opposed to government in general is just false.
One thing that really gets me is the shrugged bit itself. Instead of the choice of doing a job or not there is the pretence of a third choice, shrugging, doing the job in such a useless way that everyone wished you didn't do it at all. It's shallow sociopathic bullshit and if Stalin had paid someone to come to the US and write stuff to divide the place I doubt he couldn't have got better results. Instead Rand did it for free - living off US welfare while railing against it and the system that kept her alive.
I feel like you didn't actually read this book. The "shrugging" is not analogous to doing a half ass job as you said. It was actually about opting out entirely and not participating in a corrupt system. So of your 3 choices, shrugging was closest to just not doing your job at all. The book actually drones on quite a bit about how you should either strive for excellence in whatever you do. If you choose not to do your job as in the case of many characters in the book, it should be with some purpose rather than out of laziness or apathy.
I really think you should just read the book. You won't agree with everything. I know I certainly didn't, but I think you will find that it is not what you think it is. If you only watched the movies, I think you are actually losing a lot of what was in the book. The plot is still there, but the long speeches and nuanced conversations are pretty much boiled down to a few sentences. This is probably the right way to make a movie, but it is no longer really a defense of objectivism. Also, I wouldn't say the movies are particularly good.
With respect there are much better things to read than ranting polemics written by people with very little experience or understanding of what they are ranting against.
With respect there are much better things to read than ranting polemics
That is definitely true.
written by people with very little experience or understanding of what they are ranting against.
Which is exactly what you are doing to Ayn Rand in this thread. You are criticizing positions that you incorrectly attribute to her. You are criticizing books you haven't read. You don;t even need to read her books. You could just read wikipedia articles on ayn rand, atlas shrugged and objectivism to know that much of what you have said about her and her point of view is misinformed.
Yes there are better things you can read with your time than atlas shrugged. It is by far not a great work of literature. But I think you should read it if you are going to attempt to criticize it.
You've misunderstood. The criticism is of those that centre their lives around such an ill-informed sociopathic polemic so I can criticise their interpretation of it without reading it all myself. Just one utterly ridiculous pile of shit from it that is taken far too seriously is enough to give me the "right" to criticise those that take it far too seriously (and the pile of shit itself).
So why do I think a higher standard applies to that "philosophy" than what I've written? It should be obvious. I'm not telling anyone that I know a better way to live their lives. I'm just pointing out that a ranting polemic about how society should be from someone with little experience of what they are ranting about is flawed.
You put facts in scare quotes and then argue with only two of them.
But I can provide citations for both. Rand Paul on the environment and Rand Paul saying he likes Ayn Rand.
So what you are saying is that if something is flawed, then it is ok to lie about it? Can I say that Hitler killed a billion Chinese people? It doesn't matter if it is not true, because he was a bad guy? It's ok to lie as long as it's for a good cause? Don't you have any respect for the truth?
No I'm suggesting that if something is flawed it's OK to point out the flaws.
Your bit about lying is very insulting and childish.
Go on then - quote where I have suggested that lying is OK if you disagree with someone.
Funny thing is that looks exactly like what you are doing to me unless you failed to comprehend what I wrote or replied to the wrong post.
Go on then - quote where I have suggested that lying is OK if you disagree with someone.
I find the fact that you have no reservations about lying (or at least being willfully ignorant) to be insulting and childish.
1. You have indicated it with your willingness to do it, whether you admit to it or not.
2. I left open the possibility that you are just stupid.
So where's the quote of my words that indicates my willingness to do it?
That's what you need to show your own honesty. You can't do it can you?
Accusing others of your own sins that they do not share is somewhat tacky.
We were better off a century ago with our Republic, politically speaking.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
So where's the quote of my words that indicates my willingness to do it? That's what you need to show your own honesty. You can't do it can you?
I basically spent the entire thread correcting misinformation that you are spreading. I don't think it would be productive to copy+paste the entire thread.
So how about a few concrete examples:
You said Ayn Rand is opposed to any form of government.
You said Ayn Rand advocating living in small tribal groups.
You said "shrugging" according to Ayn Rand was doing a job poorly.
All of these are false. I asserted that they were false, and you just went on to the next bit if misinformation without contesting or conceding my assertion. This to me indicates a willingness on your part to spread misinformation. If you know it's false, then you are a liar. If you don't care, it makes you willfully ignorant.
We go back to what works, just like anything else in life.
We had a nice Republic goin there.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
He is, in fact, a grandstanding idiot appealing to those who simply hate government.
U mad bro? Go fishing...
Anti-feminist isn't really the correct way of saying it, given the skewed views of feminism. Rand Paul really is more broadly anti-female rights period.
I'm curious, since you brought up the comparison: which feminist movement promotes/practices violence and hate to the levels equal to the kkk and black panthers? Most of the 'radical' feminist groups and demonstrations I've heard of pushed for things like an equal rights amendment, equal pay, etc. the extreme radicals push for egalitarianism more than anything. The most extreme demonstrations i can find via google relate to women protesting shirtless for a gender neutral society.
I'm curious, since you brought up the comparison: which feminist movement promotes/practices violence and hate to the levels equal to the kkk and black panthers?
Not to the levels of kkk and black panthers, but a story goes that Warren Farrell was going to talk at the University of Toronto (you can search those terms for more). Farrel, if you look up wiki, was/is a supporter of second wave feminism, but nowadays thinks men and boys could use some help, which rubs certain feminists the wrong way
What happened in Toronto was that feminists gathered outside the hall where he was going to speak, and prevented people from entering to listen to him.
Not sure how this type of thing occurs IRL, but at least online there is a conflict (including on slashdot sometimes) between those who think men are still advantaged and thus any slight against women and feminism must be resisted with great force, and those who think that the tables have already turned and men are the oppressed ones with feminism being a socialist construct that perpetuates it
Obama and his administration should be sued and should be impeached, and it's not just for surveillance, the fucking guy is a murderer and he brags about it [youtube.com]. It shouldn't be just an action class lawsuit, it should be a criminal investigation into this mass murderer.
how will you install your religious movement - and its leader - in place of him? if you somehow find a way to impeach obama, you still have that pesky problem of the fact that the us is still a democracy and none of your religious leaders are in line to inherit the presidency, even if you throw out obama and biden. of course, you don't see elections as more than an inconvenience. your movement has shown a keen interest in discarding elections in order to bring more power to your leaders.
and that is how you want to bring more power for the wealthy, and fascism for the people.
An opinion based on reading a text is just an opinion and not truth or a lie.
So you getting off on calling me a liar for expressing an opinion really only tells us about what is currently going on in your head. I suggest getting over it.
Your opinions are claims that can be verified to be false. You can have an opinion that the holocaust was a hoax, but that doesn't make you immune to accusations that you are a liar or ignorant. You don't get to simply call your claims opinions, and magically become immune to the truth.
My opinion is that you are a liar and/or willfully ignorant because you have no regard for the truth.
Illegal intelligence activities caused very practical and substantial damages.
People are stupid. thats all there is too it, Look at the last 5 elections or so for proof of that.
Your grammar supports that notion.
the senate was intended to be voted on by the smart people in the house, not by the dumb people all over the country
Did you get that idea from watching a youtube video somewhere? The fact that senators used to be appointed has as much to do with logistics as anything, there were many states that previously were incapable of managing statewide elections (they had their governors appointed for the same reason).
When we elect people based on promises of what they will give me, we are all doomed. With all that in mind, yes taking the senate back from the people actually would be in our best interest.
Then why have representative government at all? Your argument could apply just as well to the house, the governorship, and any state legislature - and of course the Presidency as well - as it does to the US Senate. What is so special about the senate if you don't trust people to elect their own politicians?
... and of course that says nothing about what you believe a politician will "give" you. Do you believe that your preferred leader will reduce your taxes or something?
In the end your arguments are very very similar to those of the cult members we see around here. You are arguing for producing more power for those who hold the most power, and fascism for the people.